scholarly journals LEGALITAS PEMERIKSAAN SIDANG PERKARA PIDANA MELALUI MEDIA TELECONFERENCE DI MASA PANDEMI COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 481-505
Author(s):  
Faisal Cahyadi ◽  
Hilda Restu Utami
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code

AbstractThe focus of this research is to identify regulations governing the implementation of criminal case trials using teleconference media in Indonesia and to analyze the legality of these trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research is a normative legal research. Legal materials are obtained through literature study and interviews with legal practitioners, then processed qualitatively. Based on the results, the author obtained two conclusions. First, regulation of criminal case trials using teleconference media in Indonesia has been regulating in several laws in Indonesia. Second, the implementation of the trial during the COVID-19 pandemic, which required the defendant to remain in prison, was contrary to the principle of the defendant's presence at trial as regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code. Besides, the legal-based in the form of a circular cannot override the Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile, the legal umbrella in the form of an agreement is not appropriate considering its dimensions are private and only bind the parties. Keywords:criminal trials, teleconference, the COVID-19 pandemic AbstrakFokus pembahasan penelitian ini adalah mengidentifikasi peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur pelaksanaan sidang teleconference di Indonesia dan menganalisis legalitas persidangan perkara pidana yang memanfaatkan media teleconference di masa pandemi COVID-19. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif. Bahan hukum diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dengan praktisi hukum yang kemudian diolah secara kualitatif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, Penulis memperoleh dua kesimpulan. Pertama, pemeriksaan sidang perkara pidana melalui media teleconference di Indonesia sudah diatur dalam beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Kedua, pelaksanaan persidangan tersebut di masa pandemi COVID-19 yang mengharuskan terdakwa tetap berada di Rutan/Lapas bertentangan dengan asas kehadiran terdakwa di persidangan sebagaimana diatur oleh KUHAP. Selain itu, payung hukum berupa surat edaran bukan merupakan peraturan perundang-undangan sehingga tidak dapat mengenyampingkan KUHAP. Sedangkan, payung hukum berupa perjanjian kerja sama tidaklah tepat mengingat dimensinya yang bersifat privat dan hanya mengikat para pihak. Kata Kunci:persidangan pidana, teleconference, pandemi COVID-19

scholarly journals VALIDITAS KETERANGAN AHLI DARI PENYIDIK DALAM PEMBUKTIAN KASUS UJARAN KEBENCIAN RAS DI MEDIA SOSIAL (STUDI PUTUSAN: NO.1105/PID.SUS/2017/PN JKT.UTR)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 839
Author(s):  
Hendra . ◽  
Dian Andriawan Daeng Tawang
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Special Expertise ◽  
Conducting Research

Expert’s Testimony is the information of a person who has special expertise for the purpose of examination in a criminal case and must be given in court. An expert must provide information for justice, as well as possible and according to knowledge in his area of expertise. The expert's testimony from the police is still questionable on the independence and justice of the defendant, the expert must be independent and fair in giving explanation there should be no influence from internal or external parties. There are still many expert testimonies from investigators who are highly doubtful of their independence and deemed inappropriate to be made expertly by academicians, but in the Criminal Procedure Code it is not clear whether the expert's testimony from the investigator is allowed or not. Therefore the author interested in conducting research related to the validity of expert testimony from investigators. The author conducted research with normative legal research methods supported by interviews are expected to help answer the research and the source of interviewed is from the academics and practitioners. In the absence of clear rules, the expert's testimony from the investigator will be the pros and cons but if it refers to the understanding and the main purpose of expert testimony in the Criminal Procedure Code, it is unlikely that the expert's expertise is allowed because it will not be free, independent.

scholarly journals Upaya Hukum Peninjauan Kembali Terhadap Putusan Bebas

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hapit Suhandi
Keyword(s):  
State Government ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Main Requirement ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code

AbstractThis legal research aims to determine the reasons for the convicted perpetrators of criminal acts in filing legal remedies for judicial review in an acquittal. The rules regarding the reasons for filing a judicial review are contained in Article 263 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The main requirement for filing legal remedies for judicial review is in Article 263 paragraph (1), namely that the court's decision must be legally binding. Then Article 263 paragraph (2) explains the material reasons for filing a legal reconsideration effort. The reason the convicted person filed a judicial review is in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (2) letter c, the Cassation decision clearly shows a judge's mistake or an obvious mistake. The review is carried out by the prosecutor / public prosecutor as a legal breakthrough in an effort to obtain justice and truth due to new circumstances (novum), or mistakes or mistakes of judges and / or decisions that contradict one another. The Attorney General / Public Prosecutor does not use the cassation for the sake of the law which is his right and prefers to file a review. The Indonesian State Government System, as contained in the explanation of the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia is a state based on law (Rechtsstaat), not based on mere power (Machtsstaa). In this study using qualitative research methods, with a normative juridical approach. The results of this study, the study used normative legal research in which data collection was carried out through literature study and interviews with several sources, which were then analyzed qualitatively. The results of this study conclude that the prosecutor / public prosecutor filed a review on the legal basis of the provisions of Article 263 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of Article 68 paragraph (1) of Law Number 3 of 2009 and the provisions of Article 24 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009. Keywords: Reconsideration, Free Decision, Legal Remedies

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

scholarly journals SUATU KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN ALAT BUKTI ELEKTRONIK DALAM KEJAHATAN CYBER DALAM SISTEM PENEGAKAN HUKUM

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-25
Author(s):  
Ni Made Trisna Dewi,Reido Lardiza Fahrial
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
Witness Statements ◽  
And Function

Abuse in the electronic transaction because it is formed from an electronic process, so the object changes, the goods become electronic data and the evidence is electronic.  Referring to the provisions of positive law in Indonesia, there are several laws and regulations that have set about electronic evidence as legal evidence before the court but there is still debate between the usefulness and function of the electronic evidence itself, from that background in  The following problems can be formulated, How do law enforcement from investigations, prosecutions to criminal case decisions in cybercrimes and How is the use of electronic evidence in criminal case investigations in cybercrimes This research uses normative research methods that are moving from the existence of norm conflicts between the Criminal Procedure Code and  ITE Law Number 19 Year 2016 in the use of evidence.  The law enforcement process of the investigator, the prosecution until the court's decision cannot run in accordance with the provisions of ITE Law Number 19 of 2016, because in interpreting the use of electronic evidence still refers to Article 184 paragraph (1) KUHAP of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that the evidence used  Legitimate are: witness statements, expert statements, letters, instructions and statements of the accused so that the application of the ITE Law cannot be applied effectively The conclusion of this research is that law enforcement using electronic evidence in cyber crime cannot stand alone because the application of the Act  - ITE Law Number 19 Year 2016 still refers to the Criminal Code so that the evidence that is clear before the trial still refers to article 184 paragraph (1) KUHAP of the Criminal Procedure Code and the strength of proof of electronic evidence depends on the law enforcement agencies interpreting it because all electronic evidence is classified into  in evidence in the form of objects as  so there is a need for confidence from the legal apparatus in order to determine the position and truth of the electronic evidence.   Penyalahgunaan didalam transaksi elektronik tersebut karena terbentuk dari suatu proses elektronik, sehingga objeknya pun berubah, barang menjadi data elektronik dan alat buktinya pun bersifat elektronik. Mengacu pada ketentuan hukum positif di Indonesia, ada beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan yang telah mengatur mengenai alat bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah di muka pengadilan tetapi tetap masih ada perdebatan antara kegunaan dan fungsi dari alat bukti elektronik itu sendiri, dari latar belakang tersebut di atas dapat dirumuskan masalah sebagai berikut, Bagaimana penegakkan hukum dari penyidikan, penuntutan sampai putusan perkara pidana dalam kejahatan cyber dan Bagaimanakah penggunaan bukti elektronik dalam pemeriksaan perkara pidana dalam kejahatan cyber Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yakni beranjak dari adanya konflik norma antara KUHAP dengan Undang-undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 dalam penggunaan alat bukti. Proses penegakkan hukum dari penyidik, penuntutan sampai pada putusan pengadilan tidak dapat berjalan sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016, karena dalam melakukan penafsiran terhadap penggunaan alat bukti Elektronik masih mengacu pada Pasal 184 ayat (1) KUHAP disebutkan bahwa alat bukti yang sah adalah: keterangan saksi, keterangan ahli, surat, petunjuk dan keterangan terdakwa. sehingga penerapan Undang-undang ITE tidak dapat diterapkan secara efektiv. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah penegakan hukum dengan menggunakan alat bukti elektronik dalam kejahatan cyber tidak bisa berdiri sendiri karena penerapan Undang-Undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tetap merujuk kepada KUHP sehingga alat bukti yang sah di muka persidangan tetap mengacu pada pasal 184 ayat (1) KUHAP dan Kekuatan pembuktian alat bukti elektronik tersebut tergantung dari aparat hukum dalam menafsirkannya karena semua alat bukti elektronik tersebut digolongkan ke dalam alat bukti berupa benda sebagai petunjuk sehingga diperlukan juga keyakinan dari aparat hukum agar bisa menentukan posisi dan kebenaran dari alat bukti elektronik tersebut.

scholarly journals Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals Legality and Validity of Property Seizure in the Investigation of a Criminal Case

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Institution ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
The Russian Federation

The importance of the measure of procedural coercion in the form of seizure of property increases against the background of the high amount of damage caused by crimes, namely about 550 billion rubles annually. This measure of procedural coercion has a high security potential in order not only to satisfy claims in civil lawsuits, but also to recover a fine and other property claims provided for in Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Investigators (interrogators) annually initiate the seizure of property about 40 thousand times. 90% of cases are a success. The application of this measure is accompanied by the restriction of the property rights of both natural and legal persons, including those who are not recognized as a civil defendant in a criminal case, in the first case, and the accused (suspect).The seizure of property in criminal procedure practice is accompanied by the need for the investigator to overcome a number of difficulties, which are caused, firstly, by the intersectoral nature of the regulation of this legal institution; secondly, by the presence of gaps in the regulation of relations arising in connection with the imposition of this arrest; thirdly, by the inconsistency of the objectives of proof to establish the nature and amount of damage caused by a crime and the implementation of security activities in a criminal case. This gives rise to numerous violations of the legality and validity of the seizure of property on the part of not only the investigator, but also the court, despite the expression of a number of positions of the ECHR on this issue, despite the explanations of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.The author concludes that without the release of the investigator as a subject of proof in a criminal case from performing an unusual function — providing compensation for property penalties in a criminal case — it is impossible to achieve the full legality and validity of the seizure of property.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Meaning of the Category “Validity of the Charge” in Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

scholarly journals Competence of Trial Panel in accordance with the provisions of Vietnam Criminal Procedure Code

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (Q3) ◽  
pp. 81-86
Author(s):  
Thanh Ngoc Le
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Procedure Code

This article aims to present some contents related to trial panel in addition to analyzing some of their competence in criminal court session such as competence to issue a decision to institute a criminal case, to adjudicate jurisdiction of the trial panel when procurators withdraw the whole prosecution decision. The author also highlights some shortcomings in the implementation of legislation on and proposes some contents in the Criminal Procedure Code that need revising and supplementing.

scholarly journals Separate Filing (Splitsing) In Criminal Case Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Process

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document